I agree with Norman, we should possibly poll the users/dev lists but I can't believe that 1.4 is still a requirement.
d. On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm very limited in free time atm. So I think the descision should be made > by the active developers. Anyway I think we should drop java 1.4 support at > all. I see no real reason to support such old / outdated jvm. > > > Cheers, > Norman > > 2008/11/2 Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> i'm increasingly convinced that the 3.0 codebase contains some >> compelling reasons to upgrade. i think it's important to offer an >> upgrade path for existing installations including retaining 1.4 JVM >> support. this means preserving 1.4 compatibility in the API and >> library layers and in any functions that existing in james 2. >> >> i quite fancy experimenting with some stuff (for example OpenJPA) that >> requires java 5. IIRC there are already some optional modules which >> require a 1.5 JVM but i'd like to use a more regular system. i propose >> using module names to allow java5 in the function layer. for example, >> openjpa-java5 would act like openjpa-function but would only be >> compiled when a 1.5 JVM is used. >> >> any objections? >> >> going forward, this will result in the issue that - given the current >> build - new features would only be available atfer downloading the >> source and compiling with a 1.5 JVM. i would like to suggest the >> following long term strategy: we use the same module system but ship >> the phoenix built under 1.4 (without new features) and spring built >> under 1.5 (with the new features). >> >> opinions? >> >> - robert >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
